In recent years, the increased use of uncrewed aerial systems (UAS), or drones, for recreational and commercial activities has also led to a corresponding increase in threats to public safety, privacy and security. Counter-UAS (C-UAS) systems are designed to detect, identify, track and sometimes neutralize unauthorized drones. One less well known – but absolutely critical – area where counter-UAS (C-UAS) technology has proven invaluable is in supporting criminal investigations. A recent stalking and harassment case in Virginia, showcased at the DRONERESPONDERS National Public Safety UAS Conference (NACON), illustrated the importance of C-UAS systems in gathering crucial evidence that can aid in solving crimes. The case in question has arguably set a national precedent for drone stalking cases for law enforcement and prosecutors across the country.
The Case
In a disturbing case of stalking and harassment, a family in Virginia faced relentless drone surveillance. The aggressive drone activities included frequent flights over the family’s property, often at very low altitudes, and even following family members – including young children – as they moved between buildings on their property.
This behavior was not only intrusive in terms of privacy, but also posed a significant threat to the family’s safety. The persistent threat of the drone’s presence escalated to the point where the family felt unsafe in their own home. They shuttered blinds, altered their outdoor activities and lived in daily fear. This led them to seek help from local law enforcement.
The investigation into this case was initially challenging due to the lack of clear evidence linking the drone to its operator. However, a crucial breakthrough came when a close friend of the family managed to connect to the drone and obtained its virtual license plate number, more commonly known as Remote Identification (aka Remote ID or RID). Software available on Android or via a Wi-Fi link, enables anyone to “see” the RID associated with drones overhead.
Getting the RID from the drone proved pivotal in identifying and tracing the drone back to its owner. This marked a significant turning point in the investigation. The local investigator was able to not only secure the use of counter-UAS technology from in-state resources, but ultimately to secure a search warrant that cracked the case wide open. At the end of the day, the overwhelming amount of compelling evidence gathered by the entire team led to a rock solid conviction.
The Players
The successful resolution of this case involved several key players, each contributing their expertise and resources to address the situation effectively.
The Victims
The family who were being stalked played a crucial role in the investigation. They provided detailed accounts of the drone’s activities, which helped investigators understand the scope of the threat. Their efforts to obtain the drone’s RID and obtain its serial number were instrumental in identifying the perpetrator. Additionally, the head of the family, Lynlee Thorne, conducted her own legal research in state law and provided law enforcement with viable options to charge the suspect.
Local Sheriff’s Department
The local sheriff’s department was initially involved in responding to the family’s complaints. However, they faced challenges due to limited resources and experience in handling drone-related cases. They recognized the need for specialized assistance and collaborated with other agencies to address the situation. Make no mistake, the sheriff’s office was seminal in this investigation and helped the family over the course of the several years to bring the case to successful closure, but they recognized that they needed support from additional resources to obtain justice for the victims.
Virginia State Police (VSP)
Led by VSP’s DJ Smith, this organization played a vital role by providing access to C-UAS equipment. They loaned this equipment to support the investigation, enabling the local sheriff’s office to detect and track the drone effectively. The use of C-UAS technology allowed investigators to gather critical evidence and monitor the drone’s activities in real-time.
Virginia Institute for Public Safety (VIPC)
As the owners of the C-UAS equipment used in the investigation, and under the leadership of Chris Sadler, the VIPC was a key player in bringing justice to the victims. The VIPC maintains an agreement with VSP that enabled law enforcement to deploy C-UAS technology where it was most needed. Their involvement highlights the importance of academic institutions in supporting public safety initiatives. By providing access to advanced technology, they contributed significantly to the success of the investigation.
Role of C-UAS Technology
Of course, counter-UAS technology played a key role in this case. This use case proves that the utility of C-UAS tech extends well beyond mitigation; it can provide the type of valuable evidence essential to criminal investigations and also give peace of mind to the victims.
The Pivotal Tech In The Case
In the Virginia case, the drone technology employed was from Dedrone. It consisted of a combination of software and surveillance products, including multiple sensors, such as radio frequency (RF), radar, acoustic sensors and visual PTZ (Pan, Tilt, Zoom) cameras that leveraged integrated DedroneTracker.AI software to provide real time and continuous monitoring of the airspace and a comprehensive view of the drone’s activity in it. The detection suite also included DJI’s Aeroscope, a product no longer on the market.
Travis Scott, Vice President of Commercial Sales at Dedrone, emphasized the importance of a multi-layered and system of systems approach in drone detection systems. He noted, “There’s no single sensor that’s going to be the end all, be all.” This comprehensive approach was pivotal in building a strong case in the Virginia drone stalking incident.
Using this technology, investigators were not only able to track the drone, they were also able to identify the serial number and the battery serial number. These capabilities allowed investigators to gather key information about the drone, including its model, range, speed, and payload capabilities. The system’s ability to decode signals allowed law enforcement to legally obtain telemetry information and pilot location data. Using the imagery, they could also then visually verify the drone in question.
The Evidentiary Value
All of this data irrefutably connected the stalker’s drone to the victim’s location and consistent mode of operations.
Tracking the drone’s flight paths also offered insights into the operator’s modus operandi (well established mode of operating). By analyzing the drone’s flight patterns, investigators were able to establish intent and patterns of behavior essential to build a case against the perpetrator. The ability to track and monitor the drone in real-time allowed law enforcement to anticipate and prepare for any potential threats to ensure the family’s safety.
This level of situational awareness is invaluable in investigations, as it helps law enforcement understand the scope of the threat and develop strategies to address it.
Value Beyond Evidence
By leveraging C-UAS systems, law enforcement can demonstrate a proactive approach to addressing these threats. This can reassure the public that they are committed to protecting their safety and privacy. This is particularly important in cases involving stalking or harassment, where the psychological impact on victims can be profound.
In this particular case of stalking and harassment, justice was served, the family got closure and regained a sense of security – none of which would have been possible without the use of C-UAS technology.
Legal Hurdles
Currently, only a handful of federal agencies have the authority to deploy C-UAS technologies. Efforts to clarify the legal authority of law enforcement agencies to use these systems remains ongoing, including legislative initiatives to extend this authority to state and local law enforcement agencies. This expansion will provide these agencies with the legal backing needed to effectively utilize C-UAS systems in their operations like the one in this case.
In addition to the legal concerns in deploying C-UAS at the local level, this case revealed the tension between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s jurisdiction of the airspace and state jurisdiction over crimes. The FAA has rules that govern drone use, including restrictions on flying over people or in certain areas. These are not prosecutable crimes, but rather administrative infractions that the FAA has jurisdiction to pursue.
Law enforcement here faced issues in how to charge drone stalking and harassment under VA state criminal codes. The victim found applicable existing VA laws and worked with local law enforcement and the Commonwealth prosecutor to leverage them including: 18.260.3(A) “Stalking: fear of death/assault”, 18.2130.1(A) “Spy using electronic device” and 18.2-121.3 “Enter property to harass, drone.”
The victim emphasized the importance of knowing one’s rights and the available recourse when dealing with such harassment. Drone-related laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction. Common legal frameworks, such as trespassing laws, which are ground-centric, may not apply even if a drone is flown over private property without permission. When repeated drone flights cause distress or fear which can be considered harassment, these laws may be most applicable, as they were in Virginia.
This case highlights the challenges of applying these laws effectively in practice, especially when local law enforcement may not be fully equipped to handle drone-related incidents. It also stands for the proposition that strong cross-agency coordination works.
Key Takeaways
The use of C-UAS technology in criminal investigations, as highlighted by the case in Virginia, underscores its critical role in enhancing public safety. This ground-breaking case provided a long list of lessons learned:
- Persistence and Advocacy: The victim had to make relentless efforts over years to get attention and action. Be persistent in seeking help and advocating for oneself in such cases.
- Drone Awareness: Local law enforcement initially did not know how to handle drone-related harassment. Agencies should provide training and resources for police to address these issues effectively.
- C-UAS Technology to Gather Evidence: The initial use of RID technology to obtain a serial number, and the follow-on use of Dedrone’s C-UAS system, were crucial in gathering evidence and identifying the perpetrator. Download a RID App and use it and give our local law enforcement the ability to use C-UAS when needed.
- Community Collaboration: Collaboration between victims, local law enforcement and other stakeholders was essential to resolve this case. Work together to create effective strategies to combat drone harassment.
- Legal Awareness: There are laws on the books that can be applied to drone harassment cases. Awareness and understanding of these laws among victims, law enforcement and prosecutors is necessary for effective action.
At the end of the day, justice was served. It took years of hard work, the strong resolve of a victim, the use of C-UAS technology and an entire community to achieve that outcome. As drone threats continue to grow, so too will the importance of C-UAS technology in these and other drone-related crimes. C-UAS technology provides invaluable evidence that can aid in solving crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice. Let’s make sure those that we rely on to investigate these crimes have the capabilities they require to gather the evidence our legal system demands.